minority youth in the juvenile justice system
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
1/12
Minority Youth in theJuvenile Justice System
Disproportionate Minority Contact
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
2/12
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice SystemDisproportionate Minority Contact
ByJe Armour and Sarah Hammond
National Conerence o State Legislatures
William T. Pound, Executive Director
7700 East First PlaceDenver, Colorado 80230
(303) 364-7700
444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 624-5400
www.ncsl.org
January 2009
Cover design: Bruce Holdeman, 601 Design
This report is the second in a planned series to ocus and provide research-based inormation on key policy issues
in juvenile justice today. It is prepared under a partnership project o NCSLs Criminal Justice Program in
Denver, Colo., and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which provided unding through
the Models or Change: Systems Reorm in Juvenile Justice initiative. The project is designed to highlight
promising initiatives and state approaches and to inorm state legislative eorts in juvenile justice.
Printed on recycled paper2009 by the National Conerence o State Legislatures. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-58024-538-8
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
3/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 3
Prefaceand acknowledgments
In addition to the authors, Je Armour and Sarah Hammond, program sta in NCSLs Criminal
Justice Program, other NCSL sta who contributed to this report and the project are Donna
Lyons, group director or Criminal Justice, and Vicky R McPheron, sta coordinator. The authoralso thanks Leann Stelzer, program principal, in NCSLs publication department, or editing and
coordinating art and production.
The author grateully acknowledges Laurie Garduque, Ph.D., program director or Research, Human
and Community Development or the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, or
support and assistance to NCSL and state legislatures.
contents
Preace and Acknowledgments.......................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4
Explanations or Disproportionate Minority Contact ....................................... 4
Issues and Approaches ...................................................................................... 5
Strategies to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact ................................. 8
Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 9
Reerences ...................................................................................................... 10
Resources ....................................................................................................... 11
About the Author ........................................................................................... 11
About the Funder ........................................................................................... 11
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
4/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System4
IntroductIon
Minority youth are disproportionately represented
throughout juvenile justice systems in nearly every
state in the nation. Disproportionate minoritycontact in juvenile justice occurs when minority
youth come into contact with the system at a
higher rate than their white counterparts. Arican-
Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacifc Islanders and
Native Americans comprise a combined one-third
o the nations youth population. Yet they account
or over two-thirds o the youth in secure juvenile
acilities.
Research by the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency and the Center or Childrens Lawand Policy suggests that minority youth receive
harsher treatment than their white counterparts
at nearly every stage o the juvenile justice process.
Minority juveniles are confned and sentenced
or longer periods and are less likely to receive
alternative sentences or probation compared to
white juveniles.
exPlanatIonsfor
dIsProPortIonatemInorItycontact
Various explanations have emerged or the
disproportionate treatment o minorities. They
range rom jurisdictional issues, certain police
practices and punitive juvenile crime legislation o
the 1990s to perceived racial bias in the system.
JurisdictionThe Ofce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) points out that results can
depend on the jurisdiction in which the youth is
processed. Cases adjudicated in urban areas, or
example, are more likely to result in harsher results
than similar cases adjudicated in non-urban areas.
Because minority populations are concentrated in
urban areas, a geographic eect may work to over-
represent minorities statewide.
Another contributing actor related to urbanization
is the location and visibility o minority youth crimesalso is viewed as a contributing actor. According
to the OJJDP, although white youth tend to use
and sell drugs in their homes, minority youth are
more likely to do so on street corners or in public
neighborhood gathering spots.
Law Enforcement
Police practices that target low-income urban
neighborhoods and use group arrest procedures
also can contribute to disproportionate minoritycontact. OJJDP arrest rate statistics illustrate that
Arican-American youth are arrested at much higher
rates than their white peers or drug, property and
violent crimes. MacArthur Foundation research
shows Arican-American youth are arrested at
twice the rate o their white peers or drug crimes.
Although these statistics suggest that minority
youth simply commit more crimes, the matter is
more complicated. A 2003 National Survey in Drug
Use and Health by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration documented thatwhite youth are just as likelyor even more soto
be involved with illegal drug use and sales.
Punitive Juvenile Laws
In the early 1990s, states reacted to a spike in
juvenile homicides with handguns by enacting
tough laws that made it easier to try and sentence
youth as adults. Many states enacted automatic
transer laws to exempt certain crimes rom
juvenile court jurisdiction. Under these laws, a juvenile is automatically reerred to adult court
or adjudication based on the alleged crime. The
legislation also provided prosecutors and judges
with more discretion to try juveniles as adults.
Research indicates that automatic transer provi-
sions have disproportionately aected minority
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
5/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 5
youth. OJJDPs data show that Arican-American
and Native American youth are more likely to ace
conviction in adult court, especially or drug-related
crimes. Analysis by the National Council on Crime
and Delinquency indicates that three out o our o
the 4,100 new admissions to adult prisons were mi-nority youth. Another study completed in 2005 by
Building Blocks or Youth showed that 85 percent
o youth transerred to adult court under Illinois
automatic transer law were Arican-American.
Racial Bias
Racial bias within the justice system also is cited as
a reason or overrepresentation o minority youth.
OJJDPs analysis o various studies spanning 12
years reveals that, in approximately two-thirds othe studies, negative race eects (meaning race
explains why minorities remain in the system)
were present at various stages o the juvenile justice
process.
The complex explanations or disproportionate
minority contact along with sensitive race and
ethnicity issues, make it an important and difcult
challenge or states.
Issuesand aPProaches
Federal Level
The ederal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-
vention Act o 1974 directed states to recognize
and address racial disparities in their juvenile jus-
tice systems. Amendments to the act have since
broadened its scope rom disproportionate mi-
nority confnement to disproportionate minor-
ity contact related to all stages o discretion anddealing with youth in the juvenile justice process.
Under existing law, states are required to address
disproportionate minority contact eorts and sys-
tem improvement eorts designed to reduce, with-
out establishing or requiring numerical standards
or quotas, the disproportionate number o juvenile
members o minority groups, who come into con-
tact with the juvenile justice system. In the current
reauthorization or this law process, more expansive
requirements are proposed in the U.S. Senates re-
authorization bill to develop steering committees,
examine data, understand causes o disparities, and
take steps to address them.
States use various methods to address dispro-
portionate minority contact, including collecting
data to determine the extent o the problem;
establishing task orces and commissions to study
policies to acilitate racially neutral decisions
throughout the system; developing and expanding
early intervention services or minority youth
and their amilies; and creating alternatives to
incarceration.
Models for Change
Established by the MacArthur Foundation in 2004,
sites in our statesIllinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania,
and Washingtonwere selected to participate
in the Models or Change initiative. Models or
Change seeks to develop a blueprint or juvenile
justice reorm and accelerate progress toward more
rational, air, eective and developmentally sound
juvenile justice systems. Racial airness exists as
one o the principal Models or Change targetsor improvement, emphasizing local reorms that
can be expanded statewide. The initiative strives
or a bias-ree juvenile justice system, with routine
compliance monitoring and resources to identiy
and address disparate treatment identifed. Specifc
Models or Change accomplishments are described
below.
Locally in Berks County, Pennsylvania, for
example, our task orces o the Racial and Ethnic
Disparities Reduction Project are working toreduce overrepresentation o youth o color by
increasing the language capability and cultural
diversity o agencies that serve juvenile justice-
involved youth and their amilies; increasing
opportunities or delinquent youths education
and workorce development; developing
alternatives to detention; and understanding
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
6/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System6
the communitys service provision strengths
and gaps. A new detention assessment
instrument has been implemented and tested
to ensure that detention decisions are made
using standardized criteria, and plans or a new
alternative to detention, an evening reportingcenter, are under way.
Pennsylvania's work led to publication of a
Racial Coding Training Booklet that details
procedures or compiling accurate inormation
on race and Hispanic ethnicity or youth in
the Pennsylvania juvenile justice system, using
the two-question ormat mandated or ederal
agencies.
In Illinois,Models forChangepartners haveproduced literature on the known acts about
disproportionate minority contact in the state
juvenile justice system, needed inormation
and strategies to reduce racial disparities.
In 2007, the Disproportionate Minority Contact
Action Network was created as a component o
Models or Change. The network, operated by the
CenterforChildren'sLawandPolicy,focuseson
achieving reductions in racial and ethnic disparities
in juvenile justice systems. The DisproportionateMinority Contact Action Network consists o eight
sites in the our Models or Change states plus sites
in the newly selected states o Kansas, Maryland,
North Carolina and Wisconsin. Network goals are
to support the involved jurisdictions as they work
to develop and implement best practices to reduce
disproportionate minority contact and promote
change. Sites are exchanging inormation and
resources as they increase their ability to provide
national leadership in disproportionate minority
contact reduction. The Action Network is expectedto produce data that can increase awareness o
system biases and guide related policy, program and
unding decisions at the local and state levels.
Juvenile DetentionAlternatives Initiative
The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
(JDAI), launched in 1992 by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, strives to reduce disproportionateminority contact by ocusing on a critical
processing pointpretrial detention. To reduce
disproportionate contact and confnement, JDAI
developed risk assessment instruments (tools
designed to assess risk o violence) or detention
admissions screening; new or enhanced alternative
detention programs, such as Evening Reporting
Centers operated by community organizations in
high reerral neighborhoods or minority youth;
expedited case processing to reduce time spent in
secure detention; and new policies and practices or
responding to youth who have probation violations
or warrants or are awaiting placement. Juvenile
Detention Alternatives Initiative accomplishments
are listed below.
InMultnomahCounty,Oregon, adetention
intake team was created to evaluate youth in
custody and help successully implement risk
assessment instruments and alternatives to
detention. Between 1995, when risk assessment
instruments were frst implemented and 2000,
the gap between detained white and minority
youthconsisting o Arican Americans and
Latinosnarrowed rom around 11 percent to
roughly 2 percent. Overall detention admissions
were reduced by 65 percent. Also critical to
the site's success was collaboration with law
enorcement personnel and policymakers,
sound data collection, and training to raise
awareness about disproportionate minority
contact.
In Cook County, Illinois between 1996
and 2000, the number o minority youth in
detention dropped 31 percent. Detention
alternatives were developed or youth who
did not pose a serious threat, alternatives
include community-based evening reporting
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
7/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 7
centers that oer constructive activities during
aternoons and early evenings, so youth can
stay at home and in school.
In California's Santa Cruz and Sacramento
counties, JDAI worked to reduce high rateso minority detention that emphasized ast
track case management and risk assessment
screening tools. In Santa Cruz, a risk assessment
instrument was used to detain only high-risk
oenders; alternative programs and procedures
were developed or low- and medium-risk youth.
Partnerships with community organizations to
provide culturally responsive alternatives to
detention were critical, such as recognizing the
importance o having a bilingual sta and sta
with close community ties and lie experiencethat help them relate to youth, to acilitate
prompt transers rom detention.
Burns Institute
The W. Haywood Burns Institute works to improve
and protect the lives o minority youth by ensuring
airness in juvenile justice systems. Focusing on local
sites, the Burns Institute incorporates neighborhood
involvement and stakeholder alliances to ensure that
community representatives are directly supervisingdisproportionate minority contact reduction within
their communities. The Burns Institute has worked
in more than 30 jurisdictions nationally and has
successully reduced disparities. The Institute also
established the Community Justice Network or
Youth through 140 organizations in 21 states. Its
mission is to promote the availability o eective,
culturally appropriate interventions or youth in
minority and poor communities.
State ActionDuring the 1990s, states began enacting policies
that prescribe methods or curbing disproportionate
minority contact. In 1993, Washington became
the frst to pass such legislation by linking county
unding to programs that address overrepresentation,
improving data collection, and implementing
cultural and ethnic training or judges and
juvenile court personnel. Subsequent Washington
laws required overrepresentation reporting by
state agencies, implementing pilot programs to
reduce inequality in the juvenile prosecution, and
developing detention screening instruments.
Other states ollowed with similar eorts in
the late 1990s and early 2000s. In response to
high disproportionate minority contact rates,
Connecticut ormed a 20-member inter-branch
Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparity in the
criminal justice system to explore ways to reduce
the number o Arican-Americans and Latinos in
the system, including the juvenile justice system. In
North Carolina, the Governors Crime Commission
created a Disproportionate Minority ContactCommittee to evaluate overall disproportionate
minority contact and make recommendations to
reduce racial disparities.
Missouri took steps to require the state court
administrator to develop standards, training and
assessment on racial disparities. Oregon established
the Ofce o Minority Services as an independent
state agency and ormed pilot programs to initiate
cultural competency training and detention
alternatives. Oregon is also in its tenth year oconducting an annual governors summit on
minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice
system; attendees include judges, attorneys and
others.
Recent Activity
In 2007, South Dakota established pilot programs
in three cities to address disproportionate minority
contact. The arrest rate or Native American
youth in South Dakota is almost two and one-haltimes greater than their white peers; they also are
overrepresented in other areas o the state juvenile
justice system. Federal unding rom the JJDPA is
helping South Dakota implement the programs.
They ocus on Native American cultural awareness
and agency cultural assessment training or juvenile
justice practitioners and service providers.
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
8/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System8
In Iowa, a Youth Race and Detention Task Force
established in 2007 is addressing disproportionate
minority contactparticularly Arican-American
youthin juvenile detention centers. Wisconsins
governor ormed a Commission on Reducing Racial
Disparities in 2007 that is to make recommenda-tions or decreasing disproportionate minority con-
tact within the states criminal justice system. The
commission recently presented recommendations
that include better data collection, cultural aware-
ness, stronger eligibility requirements or public de-
enders, and adequate interpreters throughout the
justice process.
Colorados judicial and executive branches held a
summit in 2007 that was attended by more than
200 judges, judicial ofcers, prosecutors, child welare administrators, and others to discuss
the overrepresentation o minority youth in the
states juvenile court system. The Colorado Court
Improvement Committee also sponsored cultural
competency training or juvenile court personnel
to address disproportionate minority contact and
raise awareness o culturally appropriate resources
and approaches.
In 2008, Iowa became the frst state to require
minority impact statements or proposedlegislation related to crimes, sentencing, parole and
probation and or grants awarded by state agencies.
Connecticut soon ollowed, requiring racial and
ethnic impact statements or bills and amendments
that could, i passed, increase or decrease the pretrial
or sentenced population o state correctional
acilities. Similar to fscal impact statements,
the new requirements seek to provide greater
understanding o the implications a proposed law
could have on minorities.
In Pennsylvania, the disproportionate minority
contact subcommittee o the state advisory group
has been working to improve the relationships
between youth and law enorcement personnel in
communities. Through a series o local orums, law
enorcement ofcials and youth meet to learn rom
one another. In Philadelphia, local stakeholders
have extended this statewide project by developing
a curriculum or the Philadelphia Police Academy
on working with youth. It includes lessons on
adolescent development and cultural competence.
Role-playing allows cadets to practice in realistic
scenarios that involve minority youth.
As o October 2007, the OJJDPs ormula grant
inormation shows that 33 states have designated
state-level disproportionate minority contact
coordinators; 37 states have disproportionate
minority contact subcommittees under their state
advisory groups; and 34 states have invested fnancial
support or local disproportionate minority contact
reduction sites that are working on the issue.
strategIesto reducedIsProPortIonate
mInorItycontact
As states continue to study and ormulate
disproportionate minority contact reduction
policies, some common problems and eective
strategies are emerging. Data collection is a
common problem because race identifcation oten
is complex and personal. A standardized model oruniorm data collection helps local data collectors
accurately record and report inormation.
One important aspect o data collection is to recog-
nize and record both race and ethnicity. Research
suggests that, i ethnicity and race are not identifed
separately, Hispanic youth may be signifcantly un-
der-counted. Guidelines rom the National Center
or Juvenile Justice and the Center or Childrens
Law and Policy suggest a series o questionsin ad-
dition to sel-identifcation, observation and othersources such as court documentsto help obtain
the most accurate and detailed documentation.
Reliable data are important to eective analysis and
development o appropriate solutions to reduce ra-
cial disparities.
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
9/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 9
Awareness is a critical aspect o reducing institutional
biases. The Models or Change initiative strives to
raise awareness about disproportionate minority
contact among community representatives, leaders,
parents and others. Some states have sponsored
seminars and training sessions or prosecutors, judges, agency personal and others involved in
the juvenile justice process. According to OJJDP,
15 states have implemented cultural competency
training and/or organizational cultural competency
assessments. Many counties, parishes and cities
also have implemented awareness programs.
In line with JJDPAs system-wide eort to
addressing disproportionate minority contact,
the Center or Childrens Law and Policy and the
Models or Change initiative suggest states analyzeand address the problem at nine critical processing
points. The Center or Childrens Law and Policy
encourages creation o an oversight body composed
o stakeholders to identiy where disparities exist,
pinpoint unnecessary juvenile justice system
involvement, and monitor implementation o
reorms to address disproportionate minority
representation.
Since attention to the use o secure detention is
a critical point, ocusing on it can help to reduceoverrepresentation. A risk assessment instrument can
help avoid overuse o secure detention, the holding
o youth, upon arrest, in a juvenile detention acility,
such as a juvenile hall, according to the Center or
Childrens Law and Policy. Reducing unnecessary
detention o youth who pose little risk helps reduce
minority detention and overrepresentation. The
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative has
used risk assessment instruments with measurable
success in their local site programs; particularly in
Multnomah County, Oregon.
Appropriate use o alternatives to secure confnement
o juveniles in correction acilities can be used to
reduce disproportionate minority contact. These
include community-based services and graduated
parole violation sanctions. According to the Ofce
o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
19 states currently use objective risk assessment
instruments, and 25 states und alternatives to
detention. Many counties, parishes and cities also
have implemented such reorms.
conclusIon
Disproportionate minority contact remains a com-
plex issue or states. The overrepresentation o
young people o color in juvenile justice systems
prompts questions about equality o treatment
or youth by police, courts and other personnel in
criminal and juvenile justice systems. How these
juveniles are handled can signifcantly aect their
development and uture opportunities. States at-
tention to the issue, along with the research andresources o various private organizations, can
strengthen eorts to reduce disproportionate mi-
nority contact and improve airness or all youth in
juvenile justice systems.
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
10/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System10
references
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission. 2006 Annual Re-port. Phoenix, Arizona: The Governors Ofce orChildren Youth and Families, June 2007; http://
gocy.az.gov/Children/Policy/2007AnnualReportFINAL060607.pd.
Jason Ziedenberg. Justice Policy Institute. Drugs andDisparity: The Racial Impact o Illinois Practice oTranserring Youth Drug Oenders to Adult Court.
Washington, D.C.: Building Blocks or Youth,April 2001.
No Turning Back: Promising Approaches to Reducing Ra-cial and Ethnic Disparities Aecting Youth o Colorin the Justice System. Baltimore, Md.: Annie E.Casey Foundation, October 2005.
Center or Childrens Law and Policy. DMC Action
Network: Frequently Asked Questions. WashingtonD.C., 2007 and 2008; www.modelsorchange.net/pds/disproportionate minority contact%20Net-
work%20FAQs%206-21-07-1.pd.
Colorado Court Improvement Committee. ProgramReport. Denver: Colorado Court ImprovementCommittee, June 2005; www.courts.state.co.us/supct/committees/courtimprovementdocs/Colora-doCIPprogramreport05.doc.
Commission on Reducing Racial Disparities in theWisconsin Juvenile Justice System. Final Report.Madison, Wis.:Wisconsin Ofce o Justice Assis-tance, February 2008; http://oja.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=13615&locid=97.
Hinton Hoytt, Eleanor; Vincent Schiraldi; Brenda V.Smith; and Jason Ziedenberg. Pathways to JuvenileDetention Reorm; Reducing Racial Disparities in Ju-venile Detention. Baltimore, Md., Annie E. CaseyFoundation, 2005.
Hsia, Heidi. Summary o States DMC-Reduction Activi-ties Based on FY 2007 Formula Grants Application.
Washington, D.C.: Ofce o Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention,October 2007.
Hsia, Heidi M.; George S. Bridges; and RosalieMcHale. Disproportionate Minority Confnement:2002 Update.Washington, D.C.: Ofce o Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September2004; www.ncjrs.gov/pdfles1/ojjdp/201240.pd.
Johnson, Derrick. Testimony to the U.S. House o Rep-resentatives. Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission,
July 2007; http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pds/Johnson070712.pd.
Juszkiewicz, Jolanta. Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is JusticeServed?Washington, D.C.: Building Blocks or
Youth, October 2000.
Illinois: Reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact,Promoting Accountability and Fairness in Juve-nile Justice., Chicago, Ill.: Civitas Child LawCenter, 2006; http://modelsorchange.net/pds/Illinois%20Reducing%20Disproportionate%20Minority%20Contact.pd.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. AndJustice or Some: Dierential Treatment o Youth oColor in the Justice System. Oakland, Cali: Nation-al Council on Crime and Delinquency, January2007; www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2007jan_jus-tice_or_some.pd.
New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department.Statewide Disproportionate Minority Plan, Albu-querque, N.M.: NMCYF, December 2002; http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/pd/cydnm.pd.
North Carolina Criminal Justice Analysis Center. Dis-proportionate Minority Contact Reduction Initia-tives in North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C.: GovernorsCrime Commission 2006; www.ncgccd.org/PDFs/
SystemStats/winter06.pd.
Ofce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System. Pittsburg,Pa.: National Center or Juvenile Justice, Decem-ber 1999; www.ncjrs.gov/pdfles1/ojjdp/179007.pd.
Pope, Carl E.; Rick Lovell; and Heidi M. Hsia. Dis-proportionate Minority Confnement: A Review othe Research Literature From 1989 Through 2001.
Washington, D.C.: Ofce o Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention;, n.d.; www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/pd/dmc89_01.pd.
Snyder, Howard N. Juvenile Arrests 2004.Washington,D.C.: Ofce o Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, December 2006; www.ncjrs.gov/pd-fles1/ojjdp/214563.pd.
Soler, Mark. Disproportionate Minority Contact: Practi-cal Applications and Implications. Washington,D.C.: Center or Childrens Law and Policy, 2007;http://cclp.org/media/documents/doc_40.pd.
South Dakota Department o Corrections and Councilo Juvenile Services.Juvenile Justice and Delinquen-cy Prevention Program: Announcement and Requestor Proposals. Pierre, S.D.: SD Department o Cor-rections and Council o Juvenile Services, 2006.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin-istration. National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Washington D.C.:U.S. Department o Health andHuman Services,2003.
Torbet, Patricia; Hunter Hurst Jr.; and Mark Soler.Guidelines or Collecting and Recording the Race andEthnicity o Juveniles. Washington, D.C.: Centeror Childrens Law and Policy and National Centeror Juvenile Justice, October 2006; www.models-orchange.net/pds/RacialCodingTrainingBooklet.pd.
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
11/12
National Conerence o State Legislatures
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System 11
resources
Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile DetentionAlternatives Initiative, Baltimore, Md.; www.jdaihelpdesk.org.
W. Haywood Burns Institute, San Francisco, Cali.;www.burnsinstitute.org.
Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-10c.
Conn. H.B. 5933 (2008) Public Act 08-143.
Illinois Overview. November 2007; www.modelsorchange.net/pds/IL_WokPlan_1119_8%205x11.pd.
Iowa Code 2.56; 8.11.
Issues or Change: Racial Fairness;www.modelsorchange.net/issues/racial.
Mo. Rev. Stat. 211.326.
Models or Change. Washington Overview. November2007; www.modelsorchange.net/pds/WA%20
WorkPlan_1119_8.5x11.pd.
Oregon Youth Authority. Governors Summit on Over-representation in the Juvenile Justice System. 2007; www.oya.state.or.us/dmc/summit.htm.
Wash. Rev. Code, 2.56.030; 13.06.050; 13.40.027;13.40.038; 13.40.075; 13.40.210; 13.40.510.
aboutthe authors
Je Armour is a research intern in NCSLs Criminal Justice Program. He works on a wide range o criminaljustice issues. Beore joining NCSL, he worked or the Nebraska Legislature and the Nebraska Attorney GeneralsOfce while pursuing a bachelor o arts degree in political science rom the University o Nebraska-Lincoln.He will graduate in May 2009 with a law degree rom the University o Denvers Sturm College o Law.
Sarah Hammond is a program principal in NCSLs Criminal Justice Program. She is the lead sta person onNCSLs Inorming Juvenile Justice Policy Project with the John D. and Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation.She is the author o several publications related to juvenile justice and victims issues and is also a contributor to
NCSLs State Legislaturesmagazine. Beore joining NCSL, she worked in Washington, D.C., or fve years as alegislative assistant to a U.S. Senator. She has been admitted to the Colorado Bar.
aboutthe funder
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is a private, independent grantmaking institutiondedicated to helping groups and individuals oster lasting improvement in the human condition. Its juvenile justice initiative supports research, model programs, policy analysis and public education to promote moreeective juvenile justice systems across the country. A new eort, Models or Change, seeks to acceleratesystem-wide change in Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington, with the hope that the results will
serve as models or successul reorm in juvenile justice systems in other states. For more inormation or to signup or MacArthurs monthly electronic newsletter, visit www.macound.org.
The MacArthur Foundation supports a Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justiceat Temple University in Philadelphia, Penn. The network is building a oundation o sound science andlegal scholarship to help inorm the next generation o reorm o juvenile justice systems. More inormation,including issue bries on important adolescent development topics, is available at www.adjj.org.
-
8/14/2019 Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
12/12
The National Conerence o State Legislatures is the bipartisan organization that servesthe legislators and stas o the states, commonwealths and territories.
NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities or policymakers
to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an eective and respectedadvocate or the interests o the states in the American ederal system. Its objectives are:
To improve the quality and eectiveness o state legislatures. To promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures. To ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the ederal system.
The Conerence operates rom ofces in Denver, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.